FERRY SERVICE CLAIM

Press, Volume LXXV, Issue 22796, 23 August 1939, Page 14

FERRY SERVICE CLAIM

ALLEGED BREACH OF I BOND NOMINAL DAMAGES AWARDED,. ■ ' : yrasc giyen by Mr, Justice Neither oft inthe Supreme Court yes-' "on' 'the claim against Walter.: William ; Toy, : of Diamo^nd/H^rfepw^MrE.l C.; Champion), of f£sob.‘ aa a penalV by the Lyttelton Fetry Launches, (Mr„ Wright atm Mr A.', N. Mackay), who aUeged-that the’ defendant had broken a . bond, made 10. years .ago-, 1 when? the plaintiffs had bought vhis';launcb; .hot to engage in ferry servlcestround?the harbour for 10 years.,,> 1 X "‘k ' The to show that Toy made no “paymentaj'/ln ■ connexion with the -launch■ after, tbe date the' bond had. beenlmade'pp * June/12; ’.. 1929. ■' i > , v Counsel'subroitted-tbatthere/was'ho ‘ breach 'of, the /agreement in ; the - Diamond gun after.'thei bondhadvexpired./i Also ’! there waS/nb/.proof of tthe-.da!mage!m the isolated rims 'Leyy,v;whlbh. ! was not. considered rto/bej parts, of :, the harbp^^//l^ere,h'adypeen; ; vague: observations the trips<-the• defendant hadi hlade, butv it, badV;nqt;>been - that-?ther& was? fmy;. actual ;ClaSdr* ; Fort placing/a;nar-, ' xow onithe . WrighTsaldlJt-iwai clpary.that *thatser* vice . strictisd' tperiwl : i' 4 Whs - ? waaxa,;dlsrihct ■■breach. " Summing|'UP,'/hla /Honour; saM.Jhat , the-.. \date;-wasvir)?ele-vantAsthetrahsaotlon was 10 yearspld; A.i t .y>: vj? '.’-I;

fdre ; constrained' to act on .the-recital: 5' of, the parties, and hold the date being from June 12, 1929: “There has been a senes, of. comparatively unimportant breaches of tne bond,” said-/his Jut. nothing from which I am entitled to infer tha . the - work done by Toy would. flav 1 gone to the plaintiffs, or 4 as to the , amount of profit they would have made. The plaintiffs have suffered, by the intervention of Toy in getting the Lyttelton Borough Council-con , tract for the Diamond Harbour service, but it- was entirely permissible . De- - cause that contract did not begin August, and I do not; flunk the M®.-,. is attributable to the action of fendant. - Instead, of awarding wg. penal-sum, I think it is, my dutyi enter judgment for nominal uamngw . amounting, to :